Are smarter people irreligious or just nonconformists? 14 Aug 201314 Aug 2013 There’s been a lot of discussion around the traps that studies show repeatedly that those who are atheists or otherwise irreligious are on average a bit smarter than those who aren’t. The usual ballyhoo has followed, with atheists claiming that religion makes you stupid or only stupid people follow religions, etc. I want to suggest another interpretation than the proposal that smarter folk see the stupidity of religion, or the undiscussed one that those who are not religious tend to be of a higher socioeconomic stratum and so are better educated. First let’s dispose of those suggestions. I know personally many smart theists whose religious views are equally or more elaborated as any atheist’s views that I know. While this is not a statistical observation (anecdote does not equal data, and all that) it is a proof of concept that religion need not be stupid. Smart people might simply adopt smarter religious views. The claim that religion is the purview of stupid people is really dumb. Moreover, there is no reason to think that religion makes people stupid; although there’s plenty to suggest that they are often the victims of confirmation bias in areas they find contested but sacred. Unless being an atheist somehow modifies the cognitive structures of the kinds of apes we are, confirmation bias is equally rampant among atheists – consider Dawkins’ recent base rate neglect in arguing that all of Islam (a cultural and racial group) has fewer Nobel prizes than one privileged UK college. This is like saying that all Macdonald’s customers have fewer Super Bowl trophies than the Dallas Cowboys. Islam is not a commensurate group to Trinity College, Cambridge. For a start, one can be a member of Trinity without being Christian. Second, one can win a Nobel without mentioning one’s religion. I know at least one Nobel Laureate who supported active eugenics* – can we now say that there are more eugenicist Nobel Laureates than supporters of the Dallas Cowboys? And so on. Apples must be compared to apples. The socioeconomic one has more bite. For a while there has been an observed difference in IQ between developed nations and undeveloped nations, suggesting that IQ is in part a measure of one’s ability to navigate the educational structures of developed nations. The so-called Flynn Effect indicates the fluidity of what IQ measures, and we can suspect that this is not about intelligence, but privilege. So the claim would be that those who are better educated are better able to be educated. Not very enlightening, overall. However, this may also be the result of less traumatic upbringings, and better diet when young, as well as political and economic factors. But, and here’s my own thinking on this, what if it’s a measure not of atheism, but of the tendency to adopt nonconformist positions? If atheism were the long standing social norm, perhaps intelligent (that is, early adopter and critical thinking) folk would become religious instead? In short, is the difference about being able to critique the comfortable certainties of ordinary life, rather than the endogenous aspects of either religion or atheism? After all, if there are stupid (or as I prefer to think of them, late adopters and less critical thinkers) in a population, they will tend to have adopted whatever the standard and paradigmatic view is from around them no matter what it is. So the default view will be loaded with these folk. Any deviation from that social norm takes an early adopter, and so if atheism were the norm the early adopters would be religious believers. So I think that we can’t draw very many conclusions about religious belief per se, from these studies. *Frank Macfarlane Burnet. Epistemology Politics Pop culture Religion Social evolution
Epistemology Quark Philosophy Blog Awards 3 Sep 200918 Sep 2017 Yes, you can vote for your favourite philosophy blog entry. In addition to a certain immodest antipodean ape, there are a number of other interesting posts I have bolded in the list beneath the fold. You choose. No pressure… Read More
Epistemology Discussing the Evolutionary Debunking Argument 7 May 2011 John Danaher at Philosophical Disquisitions has a blog anyone with an interest in philosophy should be subscribing to. John presents simple argument diagrams and clear analyses of philosophy papers, usually those that deal with philosophy of religion and related topics. Recently he has been discussing an argument by Guy Kahane… Read More
Ecology and Biodiversity Attenborough on creationism 16 Jun 2008 From the Enough Rope series by the inestimable Andrew Denton, interviewing Sir David Attenborough, in the course of which, this segment on creationism, below the fold. Humane thoughts of a great humanist. Read More
But, and here’s my own thinking on this, what if it’s a measure not of atheism, but of the tendency to adopt nonconformist positions? Yes, that seems likely. If atheism were the long standing social norm, perhaps intelligent (that is, early adopter and critical thinking) folk would become religious instead? However, that seems unlikely. Atheism and agnosticism don’t have all of those ceremonial rituals, and that’s the aspect of religion that is likely to arouse nonconformist attitudes.
As they stand now they don’t have those rituals, but human society forms rituals and it would inevitably turn out that an atheist society would develop rituals that nonconformists would reject. Possibly the religious traditions would lack widely shared rituals in such a case.
Rituals like rolling up one trouser leg and engaging in a range of funny handshakes. It seems to have attract free thinking enlightenment types in large numbers. Perhaps it may have offered escape from social/cultural norms and the ability to develop an identity not based on strict social hierarchy?
John Its off topic but it is on the surface a surprising institution in relationship to the church (it did not seem to have any issues with it) and its growth is not connected to its origins. Throw in the full thesis as its open access and an under-read subject of some significance to the 18th century. Lisa Kahler “Freemasonry in Edinburgh, 1721-1746 : institutions and context” http://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/handle/10023/461
Reach for the data… Table T53 of the England and Wales census provides overall data of various things versus declared religion. Rows 57 – 60 (2011 census) shows qualifications, but excludes people outside 16- 74. My calculations show that as a percentage of the total (age 16 -74), higher level qualifications, as a percentage of the religious category are: All people : 19.8% Christian: 17.5% Buddhist: 39.4% Hindu: 34.4% Jewish: 35.8% Muslim: 20.6% Sikh: 22.9% Other: 33.1% No religion: 27.1% Not stated: 21.1% Now you can argue with ‘higher level qualifications’ which is defined elsewhere. Or you can do the same calculation against ‘higher managerial and professional occupation’ which gives somewhat different results, but it appears that ‘type of religion’ is an important factor. Or you can argue that England and Wales results are not typical of other countries. But I think the results show that the simple correlation between religion and ‘smarter’ people is… not simple.
“So I think that we can’t draw very many conclusions about religious belief per se, from these studies.” I agree but it seems to say something about conformity and belief in other cultural groups when you look at how the research is consumed and re-shaped to conform to a particular cultural outlook.
> the undiscussed [proposal] that those who are not religious tend to be of a higher socioeconomic stratum and so are better educated. I suppose you could take the proposals full-circle, and say that religious belief tends to leave you in a lower socioeconomic stratum. For example, if your religious belief prohibits you from using condoms, you are likely to end up with more children, so are likely to end up poorer (as are your children). Religious belief leads to lower socioeconomic status leads to poorer education. [I don’t hold with this proposal myself; I’m just saying. For what it’s worth, I take all IQ studies with a massive pinch of salt.]
My friend from Sky is fond of telling the tale about the wee free church members on the Island and the Hippies. When the counter culture took root and hippies wanted to turn in tune out and get back to nature they did not have much cash to buy homes on the island. Homes next to the faithful were much cheaper as the less conservative locals were not keen on living next door to the more severe forms of faithful (hands up who was playing football on the sabbath etc.). These are the homes the hippies got and they ended up getting along rather well with each other. I cant verify this ( I do find the tale amusing and imagine its rooted in fact he is an ethnologist but we are also culturally disposed to tell tales and slightly color things in conversation). I don’t think its controversial to view belief and its differences as effecting the socioeconomic status of individuals and communities. Ethnicity (it is a cultural construction and belief) is the obvious example particularly the experiences of immigrant communities (religion is often a factor here as it serves also as an ethnic marker). Take the I.Q studies with a firm pinch of salt but more than one way to skin this cat.
P.S Richard its often not religious belief or ethnic identity that holds people back its the legal mechanisms put in place to ensure the cultural cosh remains effective. Individual moral failing and ‘lifestyle choices’ that diverge from group norms are certainly popular with regard to explaining the differences and its no surprise to see this subject being picked up and used by people with seriously right wing perspectives in the wild, which it is. England became English not just by fire and sword but the fact the British had their legal status significantly reduced leading within a few generations to reproductive fail and slavery as you move down the social ladder rapidly. Scotland appears to have become Scottish through the same process. It seems to be a standard European move. Through such heroic acts are mighty nations borne on the backs of the destitute and dammed.
I’m not too sure about whether intelligence has anything to do with religious beliefs or not; however, I’ve always believed people that are easily lead (lack imagination) are normally the religious ones, i.e.: they don’t have the imagination to come up with their own myths and fairy tales. I do believe the original christians, muslims, etc. were great sales people and could tell/write a great story, i.e.: the bible, quran, etc. And they probably believed in what they were selling to the masses… I tend to believe the philosopher’s conclusion that man created god to have someone to blame and thank for all the “acts of god” that befell them.
[On behalf of Donald Forsdyke, who cannot comment himself for some technical reason:] Perhaps you should qualify what you mean by “active eugenics” when writing of Burnet. As you know there is positive eugenics – facilitating the reproduction of those deemed to be most worthy, and negative eugenics – preventing the reproduction of those deemed to be less worthy. For example, if being worthy equates somehow with intelligence (arguable), then through its ‘one child’ policy, China practices both positive and negative eugenics. Because of extensive post-secondary education, the intelligent usually have less opportunity to produce children. Thus, the playing field is leveled. The less intelligent (however you define it) can only produce one (negative eugenics). The more intelligent have the opportunity to at least produce one (positive eugenics). I wonder what Frank would have thought of this?
No need to wonder what Frank would have said: he published it in an extensive book: Credo and Comment.
Thank you John. I got the 1979 book. It seems Burnet was much concerned with a ‘second generation’ for humanity to progress. This needed some positive eugenics.
John, I find it very difficult to comment on your posts on my iPad. Don’t know if Donald was trying same. The keyboard often freezes – especially if I try to use the delete key. Might be a problem with a plugin. I also find the side-swipe to navigate between posts troublesome.
Fincher and Thornhill argue the relationship between IQ and religiosity is mediated by parasitosis http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2992705/ http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/77679/1/77679.pdf I don’t this works for the gradients within academia. Indeed, in academia, one could argue that religiousness is in fact already nonconformist and socially disadvantageous – I have seen a few comments to this effect within professional philosophy. Regarding Dawkins – we are talking about a 140 character comment regarding the last four centuries of relative scientific progress and its relationship to structure of different societies. The stronger argument against the general point is how many Nobel Laureates are culturally or religiously Jewish.
Overall, I appreciated your column, John. Another angle to think about: Maybe non-religious people who are “smart” (whether in terms of high IQ or some other indicator) tend to be more self-sufficient because of their intelligence and thus feel less inclination to humble themselves before God. Jesus remarked to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:23) Those who have plenty of resources may feel less need to rely on the divine Resource-provider — and that can apply equally well to brain resources as to bank accounts. Those modern surveys are not actually news. The apostle Paul long ago acknowledged the same reality: “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.” (1 Corinthians 1:26f.)
Here in the Netherlands I do notice one half of the equation: crude religion bashing of the type Dawkins practices is something that is becoming more and more associated with the lower classes in general and the Freedom Party specifically. But I don’t think that higher-educated are becoming religious (yet). That’s not because it would be hard for them: the Netherlands has a rich tradition of small liberal high brow churches. What I do notice is more awareness of and respect for the cultural and philosophical heritage of religion.
In sympathy with the non-conformist angle, the nature of religious society seems to lend itself to a follow-the-leader culture with a somewhat predictable consequence of kicking out individuals that find themselves awkwardly superior to their leader, at least in some dimension of significance to them, at times being some projection of intelligence (or compassion, empathy, …) Then what do they do? The cynical among us might then observe something about some choosing a new leader. Others strike out more or less on their own.
The issue and my own experience suggests to me that intelligence is a word that is understood in relation to cultural values and cultural norms. I would imagine issues with testing is one of expense. I had a two hour individual psy. session to work out wither I was stupid or dyslexic with a highly experienced specialist in the area. Experience and close up observation seemed to me more important than the i.q. testing and his most telling observation was in regard to the cultural failure of academics to recognize the significant strengths in particular areas the condition gave me. As someone with long experience of being identified as very stupid by educational professionals who in all cases seem to have found the identification a highly pleasing emotional experience for themselves the issues surrounding such identifications are cultural.
You envisage a society where “atheism (is) the long standing social norm” and hypothesise that in such a society “ perhaps intelligent (that is, early adopter and critical thinking) folk would become religious”. The ‘ism’ suffix in ‘atheism’ is misleading. It implies that atheists have a common set of beliefs/philosophies. Not so. In the society you envisage only the minority (say 20%) would warrant a descriptor, for example, ‘religious’ or ‘deluded’. The remaining 80% would simply be ‘ordinary’ people, including those (say 25% of ordinary people) who are the same individuals who in our current society have rebelled against the norm by becoming atheists. Your hypothesis that those 25% would then rebel by adopting the delusions of the religious strikes me as no more probable than that they would adopt other weird beliefs for which there is no credible evidence – such as in conspiracy theories or Big Foot.
I have previously discussed the privative or complementary definition of atheism (as the lack of theism) versus other forms. It is not hard to envisage that there might be, oh, I don’t know, an official form of atheism in some society or other…
I read it that John is perhaps using novelty as a defining or important aspect of intelligence. From that perspective the point seems reasonable to make I think.
I think yours is a charitable reading of his thesis. Very christian of you (inserts hypothetical smiley face!). Joking aside. The proposition is that atheist individuals in our society have some shared characteristic(s). Seems reasonable. Whatever it/ they may be, however, we can flick-pass the question into the slippery hands of psychologists for the moment. John’s thought experiment is, effectively, ‘in a society where atheism is the long-standing norm would those self-same individuals differentiate themselves from the norm and, if so, how?’ His hypothesis is that they would become religious. Thought experiments should come with the warning ‘don’t try this at home’! Which of course tempts one to indulge in them! Dangerous fun in the wrong company around the dinner table! I suspect John is just stirring the pot with his hypothesis.
My hypothesis is that it might have worked out that way, not that it actually does. In short, that such cases undermine the claim that the religious are less intelligent.
“I think yours is a charitable reading of his thesis”. Actually its not and its partly based on you’re comment about Big Foot. You’re helpful comment allowed me to alter johns remark. Imagine a world in which one species believes itself to rule over all other species and is entirely distinct. Imagine a story….. (I investigate big foots ancestral relatives). We can test this empirically. I am about to do so and already have a boring title. “The Man Like: A Creative Conservative Goes Ape In Late 17th Century Thought.” Its been making me laugh all morning as Johns comment and you’re big foot remark allowed me to see something I have grown to familiar with in regard to gender conventions from a slightly different angle. Many thanks.
Well the title is un-boring enough that if I saw it on a bookshelf I’d certainly take it down and at least look at the blurb to find out more about its content!!
The non-conformist thing rings true to me, I confess. A CofE upbringing turned me into an atheist, only for the new internet normal of Dawkins atheism to send me back-footing it for agnosticism. but then I heard of “ignosticism” and that sounded edgier, so I side-stepped that way. And, of course, as compelling as a hipster-esque repulsion to the spiritual mainstream can be, it certainly can’t be described as intelligent.
Fascinating take on this. Although compare and contrast with your earlier piece on the Heffernan debacle and we reach a problem. Would the intelligentsia in the hypothetical atheist world really go religious, could the intelligent ones really countenance such a schizophrenic worldview?
What bothers me profoundly with such studies is that no difference is made between the various religions investigated. What would be really intersting would be a new study not comparing atheists with non-atheists but the numerous groups out there with one another. 1) reductive materialists 2) non-reductive materialists 3) non materialist naturalists 4) deists 5) pantheists 6) conservative Christians 7) progressive Christians 8) liberal Christians 9) conservative muslims 10) taoists and so on and so forth. Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
” If atheism were the long standing social norm, perhaps intelligent (that is, early adopter and critical thinking) folk would become religious instead?” Here in Holland atheism has been a standing norm for the last few generations and I certainly don’t see new converts to religion. A lot of “something”-ists though (as in there has to be ‘something’, but it sure doesn’t jibe with the God of my (great-)grandparents)
Although around 46% of the Dutch are not affiliated with a religion (a very high statistic comparatively) that doesn’t translate to atheism being the dominant norm. In fact I would bet actual atheism is less that 20% even there. Also, with the Dutch tradition of Christianity, it’s not quite what I had in mind. Consider instead Russia, which did have an atheist “norm” until the collapse of the Soviet Union: now around 73% of Russians identify as Orthodox.